BBO Discussion Forums: Teaching the laws at the table - BBO Discussion Forums

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 09:00, said:

blackshoe, on 2012-January-27, 11:18, said:

The answer to my question is "it is false everywhere". A NOP can ask the TD to waive rectification, only the TD can decide to do it.

Under what circumstances would a director waive rectification, unless perhaps in a novice game? Doing this could create unfair advantage.

The ACBL has dropped the ball where club directors are concerned. For years, becoming a club director was a piece of cake: you took a 120 or so question mostly multiple guess open book test (for which you had three hours), and if you passed, voilà, you were a club director. This is, AFAIK, still the case. One entire section of the test is on the workings of ACBLScore. I took it. Finished with an hour to spare, missed three questions, at least one of which, as I recall, I missed because it was poorly worded. I think another I missed because the "correct" answer was actually wrong.

There is a one day (I don't know how many hours, or what's covered) club TD course given at Nationals, and very occasionally at Regionals (although I've not seen it around here in the last two decades), but you don't have to take it. There's also a refresher course given occasionally, but no one has to take that either. The ACBL's attitude towards club directors is "you passed the test, here's your qualification card, you're on your own". The only ACBL regulation HQ enforces on clubs is "we must receive your monthly report, accompanied by the money you owe us, by the tenth of the following month". If they get that, they don't care about anything else. At least, that's the way it's been. I've heard rumors recently that they're going to be more proactive at dealing with problems in clubs, though not specifically with incompetent directors, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 11:33, said:

Perhaps when a player's disability causes the infraction.

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 11:33, said:

Picky, picky. Want me to go back and change my post? Nice trap, though.

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 11:33, said:

Unfair advantage for who? The OS? I don't see how the NOS asking the TD to waive rectification could possibly be unfair to the NOS, unless they are completely clueless. If you mean it could be unfair to the OS, well, that would be a good reason for the TD to deny the request, don't you think?

It's a matter for TD judgment, to be decided case by case.

blackshoe, on 2012-January-27, 11:35, said:

It is still the same, I took my CD a few years ago. Since at that time I had only played a handful of games at a club and knew nothing about LOOT's, POOT's etc I made the mistake of paying for online "course". I hoped it would help me prepare before attending the directors course at the club. I found ACBL's online course no better than reading the law book for myself, you can learn much more by reading & asking in these forums.

blackshoe, on 2012-January-27, 11:41, said:

No, I mean it would be unfair to the entire playing field. I don't see why a NOS asking for the director to waive rectification
would influence the decision, unless it was against rank beginners.

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 11:46, said:

Ah, I forgot about the online course. And thanks for the compliment to these forums.

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 11:55, said:

There is nothing anywhere in the laws about "the field". When the TD rules, he should not consider the field at all, only the table at which he's ruling.

The ACBL suggests in such cases that if you are the declaring side that this sort of "information they need to know that they can't reasonably work out they need to know from the auction" should be mentioned. So in Paul's case, if they found out that I had 5+ hearts, and I'm in slam, I'd say "X bid promises 6+ hearts". Other jurisdictions, other regulations, and I know of at least one person who as the opposition would be upset with this - so just a data point, not a suggestion.

Upset? Why?

blackshoe, on 2012-January-27, 11:41, said:

Imo the act of playing god [read- the request to waive penalties] is counter productive. For one reason it is an act of intimidation** [irrespective of any intended kindness]. This is because it imply ‘a dare’ to call the TD on some future irregularity- as in, it can motivate the OS to reciprocate [because they believe there is the expectation o].reciprocity.

**by offering to waive the player is put in the position of refusing to accept generosity or not, but either way there is a debt to be repaid for accepting the gift or for having the gift offered; whether the debt is real or just imagined, it persists even after it is ‘repaid’


However, if you are hell bent upon it…imo, the only respectable technic for waiving penalties is to never [as in forever] draw attention to the irregularity.

To give a real life example look at [I believe] the 99 USTT. iirc there had been a revoke that wasn’t penalized. Then later in the match the other side played two cards to a trick which was penalized- the PC shifting a couple of tricks and a boat load of imps. This evidently hurt someone’s feelings because they felt entitled to reciprocation for letting the revoke penalty slide. It is my understanding that WW3 erupted and a lot of players were flogged as a consequence.

All things considered. waive penalties at the risk of winning friends and influencing people.

All things considered, Ax, I think you're out of your mind. I also think that anyone who "felt entitled to reciprocation" in the case cited was out of his mind.

Okay, there's two threads going on here, and I missed one. So:

The OP started by asking "if you were looking to educate, how would you do it" - and then when someone asked for an example, people were going with "sounds silly from experienced players to experienced opponents" and "...and 'I want to prove I'm right.'" Experienced opponents aren't the problem, in my mind - they should know the rules, and if they don't follow them, then I'm not calling the TD for education, I'm calling to get a ruling on the hand, and assuming that if any education has to happen, the TD will be using the time-honoured "obviously they don't listen with their ears, time to make them listen with their results" method.

The problem is the newer players - who just don't get it - and the people who do it often enough to irritate, but probably aren't needing it as a crutch. We're talking alternatives to the Experienced Player's "I could call the TD on that, but I won't" - which *is* condescending, not helpful (because EP can't explain to the newer player why what they did was wrong, in their high dudgeon, not in a way the newer player can understand), and occasionally either flat-out-wrong, or not a problem for the newer player's peers (even if it would be a spectacular problem for the EP and his partner). In those cases, expressing that "I was told something different, and it intrigues me. Let's find out from the TD what's supposed to happen" works better - even if you *do* know you're right (after all, the EP above knows he's right, too, even when he isn't :-).

Now, if *I* pulled that "I'm not sure..." trick, when I was in fact sure, everyone would know I was laying it on with a trowel, and it wouldn't work. Better for me to either call the TD for a ruling, or explain carefully myself (if I think these players will accept it), or talk to the TD later and let the TD do what she would with it (including ignore it), or just drop it altogether. But I'm an exception, and there are about 200 of us exceptions in the ACBL.

I have been known to call and say "I'm sure the player did everything correctly, but this situation occurred, and I just want to make sure we all agree on the facts." Sometimes, it's been because I was reserving my rights, and sometimes it was (as the other opponent has occasionally remarked) "he just wanted to let you know that there are issues when you bid after my long hesitation." I just smile - and I won't tell you which is which :-).


Now, the other comment - about wishing to waive my right to a rectification - the way the laws read, it is one of my rights to request, (as it is one of the TD's rights to deny that request). The TD can't waive the penalty on her own, nor can I (once the infraction has been brought to attention). But I can ask, and the TD can grant my request. In an education call, the alternative is to not mention the infraction and not call the TD - which waives my rights very effectively as it turns out. Given that both of those actions are legal, the field can go hang. And so can any opponent who thinks I'm looking for a break later - after all, if I feel like I need to do some education, any penalty that comes by is the least of the insult. I don't expect a break at all, unless the education gets received clearly (and usually I get a "thank you", and they try to beat me on the next hand), and sometimes not even then.

I'm reminded of the time I actually used the phrase - the very Polish and obviously new-to-Canada opponents opened 2♦, 5-5 in two suits not both minors. When the hand had ended, I mentioned that I "thought" that may not be legal in our game, and called the TD. I requested to waive any penalty, and claimed that I thought my partner and I should be able to handle the call (after all, the previous week we were playing a crazy Swedish-style club system against a homegrown forcing pass, for fun) but in case they came up against a pair who was less laidback than we, could you confirm that this is legal?

And the phrase in the lawbook is "for cause". Certainly, disability is such a cause - such as the time one player sorted her hand, then lost control of one of her hands and dropped 4 clubs, face up, on the table. But it's not the only one. I personally treat "for cause" very liberally, and I'd be unwilling to meet someone's request when the cause is clearly "these are my friends, and I don't want to hurt their score, given our 30% game" and that's pretty much it.

Blackshoe: re: upset at volunteered information before the OL: I didn't get it either. I'm not able at this time to do the forumsearch, but the last time I mentioned it, I did get such a response.

Waiving rectification is just routine. The most obvious time is when a LOL plays two cards instead of one and you just get them to pick it up and play on. Penalty cards are vastly annoying for declarers, as it means you cannot compare your experience of the hand to another declarer in a PM as you have to play to take advantage of the penalty card.

Also, it just generally leads to a nicer atmosphere if you don't go calling the director on issues that don't really meaningfully affect the game. Most importantly, it often ruins the fun for me. Often penalty cards just mean you can make extra tricks by finessing into the penalty card. Great, but basically I like to beat the other declarers, not just have random tricks fly at me for no reason.

Bridge is basically meant to be fun, sure when I play at the top tables you should be enforcing the laws, but against some random LOL it just leads to hurt feelings for no reason, and bridge is not worth that imo.

I don't disagree, Phil, particularly if you're a better player playing in a local club and that's the "culture" at that club. But in this forum, we try to teach what the rules are. The rules say "call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity". They don't say "call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity, except if you don't feel like it". So while I have no problem saying "in a club game, you might not call the TD" so long as it's clear that calling the TD is what the law says to do. Consider two "random LOLs" playing against each other. While one of them might decide on her own initiative not to call the TD, we don't want her to come away from this forum with the feeling that she can't call the TD, because "in spite of what the rules say, it's just not done".

I do feel a little uncomfortable not calling the TD if I'm not absolutely sure that not doing so will not deprive the other side of some of their rights. Meh. A lot of "nots" in that sentence, I could probably have worded it better.

phil_20686, on 2012-January-28, 13:15, said:

I find waiving rectifications causes far more problems and creates more unpleasantness than just playing the game by its rules. After all, that's what a game is: something that's played by rules.

I played in a club game last week.

In one round, a player dropped two cards out of her hand. She might have been nervous, tired, whatever. I asked her to pick it up.

In another round, a player is playing a side heart suit from dummy (KQxx remaining I think - Ace had already been played) in a trump contract. She calls 'heart', and my partner plays. Dummy has kind of a startled look on his face and doesn't detach a card but when declarer discards, he reaches for the King (?!). I play a higher heart and lead to the next trick, and all hell breaks loose. Declarer is 100% adamant she said "high heart" but dummy can't corroborate this. She continues this charade with the director, but the director doesn't let it go, and about two tricks go away.

In between rounds an hour later, I tell the director who I know very well that if declarer would have been more forthcoming about it, I would have just let it go.

gordontd, on 2012-January-28, 17:10, said:

This has not been my experience

gordontd, on 2012-January-28, 17:10, said:

I think this is naive, any game involving humans is too complicated to codify "right" behaviour. My favourite example is playing the colour coup against the partially sighted, or even just the elderly. Is it within the rules, yes, is it acceptable? Not imo.

Another example that I personally find distasteful, is that if you are playing a long team match against a pair known to be slow, make sure that you yourself take up your full allocation of time (while being careful not to be slow yourself), even if you are naturally quick. The result will be that they are penalised rather than you.

gordontd, on 2012-January-28, 17:10, said:

Do you object to a player calling the TD because UI has been passed by the opponents, when the player does not think he has been damaged but he wants the opponent's action noted?

Should the player say "I do not think I have been damaged on this hand"?

Is the player saying that they do not think they have been damaged different from waiving rectification?

RMB1, on 2012-January-29, 13:04, said:

Yes, it is very different. It's the difference between "giving something away that is yours" (you are entitled to the rectification that you are waiving) and "not steeling" (if you are not damaged, you are not entitled to a rectification. If you would do the opposite and would try to get a rectification that you don't deserve that would be "trying to steel".).

If you state that you think that you are not damaged, that is part of giving evidence to the TD. The TD will later decide based on -among others- that evidence. On this evidence you aren't even entitled to a rectification, since there was no damage. You never were entitled to rectification and never will be.

If you waive a rectification, the evidence gathering process is finished, there is a prescribed rectification to which you are entitled, and you request that the TD doesn't apply it.

In the one case you are giving away something that was legally yours, in the other you are stating: "It is not mine".

If a thief breaks into my house and steels my wallet, I may tell the judge that he can have my wallet since he needs the money more than I do. That would be grand, like waiving a rectification.
If a thief breaks into my house and turns up with a wallet in his pocket that is not mine, I can tell the police that this wallet wasn't mine. There is nothing grand about that.

Rik

wyman, on 2012-January-27, 10:25, said:

Why not? If you know they are wrong, simply ask them to read out the law to you.

Phil, on 2012-January-28, 18:14, said:

This incident was rather strange, but I do tend to think that a declarer knows what he said, even if no one else has understood him clearly. I have found that I sometimes swallow "top" or "high" and it can easily be missed.